Money and Presocratic Philosophy

This chapter develops my previous work on the influence of monetization on the genesis and early form of the first “philosophical” (presocratic) cosmology in ancient Greece (and ancient India). The basic reasons for supposing such influence are (a) the coincidence in time and place between monetization and presocratic cosmology, (b) the widespread phenomenon of cosmization, and (c) the structural similarity between money and the presocratic cosmos. My main focus is on an objection that might be made to there being such influence. Herakleitos and Parmenides are contemporaries and yet they present cosmologies that could hardly be more different. The Herakeitean cosmos is in constant flux, consisting of fire that is transformed from and into other elements, whereas the Parmenidean One is a single homogeneous abstract entity that never changes. How can they both be cosmizations of money? The answer provides striking confirmation of the influence of monetization. There are two features of money that mutually exclude each other while both being essential: circulation and possession. Herakleitos cosmizes (communal) circulation, Parmenides (individual) possession—differences that can be related to their different political positions. This explains not only the polar opposition between Herakleitos and Parmenides but also various otherwise inexplicable details of what they say (e.g., Herakleitos B80, B65; Parmenides B8.9–10, B8.48). I also propose a new hypothesis to explain the universal importance for Herakleitos of the unity of opposites, as derived from the universality of the unity of opposed transactors in monetized exchange.